faith under the doctrine of passive holding In these circumstances the Panel holds that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith The Panel finds that the above constitutes registration and use in bad faith

of the case such passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith As also established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive

not prevent a finding of a passive holding in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Under the irDRP the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities

are decided based on the passive holding doctrine or likewise where there is evidence of use of a domain name for an email-based scheme e.g phishing or fraud but no website content Mindful of the possibility that the disputed domain name may

faith under the doctrine of passive holding While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or

accuses the Respondent of passive holding which would also evidence bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings The agreement by which the Respondent registered the Disputed

of bad faith the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name while attempting to sell it to the Complainant for USD 80 000 contending that these facts demonstrate that the Respondent intended to deprive the Complainant of a domain name

Panels have held that the passive holding of a domain name can be considered as use in bad faith see between many others Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Cleveland Browns Football Company LLC v

and thus is being held passively The passive holding of the disputed domain name indicates bad faith on the part of the Respondent h The Respondent has registered and/or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling

of a mere coincidence The passive holding of a domain name reflecting a famous trademark is indicative of bad faith use and registration B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A

The Respondent s current passive holding of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith As explained in Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine

Even if the Respondent was passively holding the Domain Name again that in itself would not assist him As already mentioned past use cannot be ignored and moreover a passive holding of a domain name can in some circumstances support a finding of

considered as an inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name the Panel finds that such passive holding would not prevent a finding of the Respondent s bad faith See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc and Les Publications Condé Nast S.A v

to the doctrine of bad faith passive holding finally adding that the Respondent has used an email address associated with the disputed domain name to attempt to pose as the Complainant and perpetuate a financial fraud Finally according to the

even in cases of so-called passive holding as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to

is a consensus view about passive holding From the inception of the UDRP panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name including a blank or ‘coming soon page would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive

name Second inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent may amount to bad faith use See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc and Les Publications Condé Nast S.A v ChinaVogue.com WIPO Case No D2005-0615 Société pour

it is well established that passive holding or non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 and such non-use will not change the Panel s findings above In the Panel s view having taken the

even in cases of so-called passive holding as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to

it is noted in relation to passive holding cases that while panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of